General Discussions

Yeah, that's usually the case with retired games, with VERY few exceptions - they're just old, and the devs stopped patching a long, long time ago, so "unretiring them" would amount to updating the offsets for the latest (and almost certainly final) version, and then it's done. Sorta like the games that Steam took over from GFWL - I really doubt we're going to be seeing anything new from Batman: AA, or Bioshock 1, but y'all did an awesome thing and fixed them in a one-off kind of way. That'd be more what I view as "unretiring" a game, as opposed to actually putting it back in rotation as a game that's being constantly curated.

If I may offer one word, I hope this isn't taken poorly, sometimes I feel that those of us who aren't jerks end up getting lumped in with people who are jerks and complain about a feature not working for them or whatever. I should hope it's clear that the vast majority of users appreciate the effort that you guys put into making trainers for games, I hate to see one person with an unreasonable complaint end up putting a game on retirement because they upset y'all when pretty much everyone else is , if you understand what I mean. When I was a kid, I didn't like it when the whole classroom was punished because of one obnoxious brat - there have been one or two occasions where I felt like that happened here, some mouthy idiot "ruins it for everybody." That's totally their fault, and nobody else is backing them up, so it's unfortunate that there have been very good games now and again retired because of the complaints of somebody who doesn't know how to use it, or feels like they're the arbiter of what makes a trainer good or whatever.

But then, at the end of the day it's your site and I'm happy to get the good stuff that I do get. And we'd probably end up in a worse situation if very explicit criteria were set up for retirement, like "x number of patches = retired" since that'd end up hurting some VERY good games, like Borderlands 2, that have had an unusually large number of actual quality, high-content expansions (esp. in the age of shovelware DLC garbage!) that you guys have kept alive despite the man-hours required compared to games that come out and never get any more patches or whatever.

I'm on board with all things discussed so far, except for being gutted and run over, I just don't think that's for me...

Yeah, that's usually the case with retired games, with VERY few exceptions - they're just old, and the devs stopped patching a long, long time ago, so "unretiring them" would amount to updating the offsets for the latest (and almost certainly final) version, and then it's done. Sorta like the games that Steam took over from GFWL - I really doubt we're going to be seeing anything new from Batman: AA, or Bioshock 1, but y'all did an awesome thing and fixed them in a one-off kind of way. That'd be more what I view as "unretiring" a game, as opposed to actually putting it back in rotation as a game that's being constantly curated.

If I may offer one word, I hope this isn't taken poorly, sometimes I feel that those of us who aren't jerks end up getting lumped in with people who are jerks and complain about a feature not working for them or whatever. I should hope it's clear that the vast majority of users appreciate the effort that you guys put into making trainers for games, I hate to see one person with an unreasonable complaint end up putting a game on retirement because they upset y'all when pretty much everyone else is , if you understand what I mean. When I was a kid, I didn't like it when the whole classroom was punished because of one obnoxious brat - there have been one or two occasions where I felt like that happened here, some mouthy idiot "ruins it for everybody." That's totally their fault, and nobody else is backing them up, so it's unfortunate that there have been very good games now and again retired because of the complaints of somebody who doesn't know how to use it, or feels like they're the arbiter of what makes a trainer good or whatever.

But then, at the end of the day it's your site and I'm happy to get the good stuff that I do get. And we'd probably end up in a worse situation if very explicit criteria were set up for retirement, like "x number of patches = retired" since that'd end up hurting some VERY good games, like Borderlands 2, that have had an unusually large number of actual quality, high-content expansions (esp. in the age of shovelware DLC garbage!) that you guys have kept alive despite the man-hours required compared to games that come out and never get any more patches or whatever.

I'm on board with all things discussed so far, except for being gutted and run over, I just don't think that's for me...

I honestly think 50 is a little low, but maybe it's a good starting point. It just seems to me that 5-10 users doesn't justify a trainer. Especially with continually stacking points - if I hold onto my points for half a year while other people are "buying" the trainers I want, then I get to the point where I can single-handedly "buy" a trainer. My suggestion would be for a cap on stacked points or only earning points quarterly / semi-annually.

@Forty-twoThat's kind of the way I feel as well, especially if the ability to "buy" points is added as well. If we don't have to spend points on the AAA games, and the non-AAA games I want are often covered by 5+ other people, then that would allow me to push through 2 trainers a year myself. Then again, with people "pooling" their points for situations just like this, it may not be as easy to get to 50 as we might think...might be that the points need to be adjusted a bit after release, no matter what the levels are.

I think the guys would have to weigh the costs of doing an average non-AAA trainer and figure out where that fits into the point system. Either way, I am looking forward to this type of system going live.

We will see how it goes when it's ready. For me it's fair enough to say that people who want trainer for every low budget game that is pushed out on Steam that may have a popularity on CH of 2-3 users, that they can support us by buying points and spend them on those titles. Users who don't want to buy points which is fine still get trainers and editors for most of the games.

It's just about all those early access, prealpha, beta, low budget content that is released on steam every day which cost us more time and money than any AAA title (and they have less download counts than triple A).